Update on await syntax in Rust

#1

Post by steveklabnik » Tue, May 28, 2019, 2:36 PM UTC

Update on await syntax in Rust
boats.gitlab.io

Re: Update on await syntax in Rust

#2

Post by CJefferson » Tue, May 28, 2019, 4:00 PM UTC

I'm nit going to stop using rust, but I find this very disappointing.

One thing I strongly disagree with - - this article said other notations would require Rust users having to learn more notation. This still requires learning more notation, just it's easy to not even be aware it exists and think a struct had a member called await instead...

Re: Update on await syntax in Rust

#3

Post by BozeWolf » Tue, May 28, 2019, 4:02 PM UTC

Nice! That was quicker then I Expected. How far are they with the implementation? Not using rust, but following progress because it is on hackernews so much.

Why does it take so long for swift to have this? Swift + iOS developers really really benefit from it. And there are loads of ios developers compared to rust developers.

Re: Update on await syntax in Rust

#4

Post by Analemma_ » Tue, May 28, 2019, 4:04 PM UTC

The fact that discussions over syntax generate pages and pages of furious bickering, while discussions over semantics (which is what actually matters) get a shrug, is the ultimate example of bikeshedding in PL design. Honestly, syntax just doesn't matter. Yes, particular poor choices can impede usability, but that's not applicable here, and ultimately after two minutes or so of learning the new syntax there's no difference between this and "await foo".

Re: Update on await syntax in Rust

#5

Post by Arnavion » Tue, May 28, 2019, 4:05 PM UTC

BozeWolf wrote: post #3

Nice! That was quicker then I Expected. How far are they with the implementation? Not using rust, but following progress because it is on hackernews so much. Why does it take so long for swift to have this? Swift + iOS developers really really benefit from it. And there are loads of ios developers compared to rust developers.

It has been usable on nightly since `nightly-2019-05-09` (with https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/60586 )

Re: Update on await syntax in Rust

#6

Post by arkitaip » Tue, May 28, 2019, 4:05 PM UTC

Analemma_ wrote: post #4

The fact that discussions over syntax generate pages and pages of furious bickering, while discussions over semantics (which is what actually matters) get a shrug, is the ultimate example of bikeshedding in PL design. Honestly, syntax just doesn't matter . Yes, particular poor choices can impede usability, but that's not applicable here, and ultimately after two minutes or so of learning the new syntax there's no dif…

This is every topic on Hacker News so I'm not sure why anyone would be surprised or really care.

Re: Update on await syntax in Rust

#7

Post by [deleted] » Tue, May 28, 2019, 4:07 PM UTC

BozeWolf wrote: post #3

Nice! That was quicker then I Expected. How far are they with the implementation? Not using rust, but following progress because it is on hackernews so much. Why does it take so long for swift to have this? Swift + iOS developers really really benefit from it. And there are loads of ios developers compared to rust developers.

[deleted]

Re: Update on await syntax in Rust

#8

Post by rileywatkins » Tue, May 28, 2019, 4:07 PM UTC

What a milestone! This was the most impressive work in open source decision-making that I have ever followed (in my limited experience). People have contributed thousands of comments discussing this for over a year. It has even caused the team to rethink how discussions like this should be guided in the future beyond comments on GitHub issues. I cannot imagine how difficult it has been to manage it all, and I applaud and thank the Rust team for their hard work in fielding comments, weighing trade-offs, and ultimately making a decision in order to move the project forward.

Re: Update on await syntax in Rust

#9

Post by anchpop » Tue, May 28, 2019, 4:10 PM UTC

Analemma_ wrote: post #4

The fact that discussions over syntax generate pages and pages of furious bickering, while discussions over semantics (which is what actually matters) get a shrug, is the ultimate example of bikeshedding in PL design. Honestly, syntax just doesn't matter . Yes, particular poor choices can impede usability, but that's not applicable here, and ultimately after two minutes or so of learning the new syntax there's no dif…

Syntax may be irrelevant at the end of the day, but nice syntax can make a big difference in usability imo. I'm not following the Rust example, but discussions of it remind me about discussions about UFCS (Universal Function Call Syntax). That's where `foo(a, b)` can be rewritten as `a.foo(b)`. That may seem minor, but look at this code:

    half_square = divide(square(a), 2)

In comparison to:

    half_square = a.square().divide(2)

Many find the latter much more pleasant to read, and things like this can make a big difference in how fun I find it to use a language.

Re: Update on await syntax in Rust

#10

Post by Pahr3yah » Tue, May 28, 2019, 4:10 PM UTC

CJefferson wrote: post #2

I'm nit going to stop using rust, but I find this very disappointing. One thing I strongly disagree with - - this article said other notations would require Rust users having to learn more notation. This still requires learning more notation, just it's easy to not even be aware it exists and think a struct had a member called await instead...

Await is a keyword, syntax highlighters will most likely paint it differently.